Acquisition of Ownership by Possession Under the Limitation Act, 1963

The concepts of possession and the passage of time can significantly affect legal ownership. The Limitation Act, 1963, plays a crucial role in this area by setting time limits for initiating legal actions and also allowing acquisition or loss of property rights through long and uninterrupted possession. This system is not only about rewarding vigilant possessors, but also about encouraging landowners to be proactive in protecting their rights.

Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are key to understanding how someone can acquire property rights simply by remaining in possession for a defined period, or how owners may lose rights if they “sleep over” them. This article aims to explain these provisions in simple, clear language, supported by examples and relevant case law.

Why Does Possession Matter in Law?

Before diving into the Limitation Act, it’s essential to understand why possession is given so much importance.

• Possession as Evidence of Ownership: In practice, the person who possesses land or property is presumed to be its owner unless proven otherwise. This is because possession is visible and easy to prove, whereas documentary titles may be lost or disputed.
• The Principle Behind Adverse Possession: The law does not favour property lying unused. If someone openly occupies and uses property without the owner’s permission for a long time, and the owner does nothing to recover it, the law may favour the possessor in order to maintain social order and avoid endless disputes.

Key Provisions: Sections 25, 26 and 27

Let’s now look at the three main sections that govern acquisition by possession under the Limitation Act.

Section 25: Acquisition of Easements by Prescription

An easement is a right to use someone else’s land for a specific purpose, like a right-of-way, right to light, or right to drain water.

Section 25 says that if a person enjoys an easement over another’s property peacefully, openly, as of right, and without interruption for 20 years, he or she gets a legal right to continue that use. If the property belongs to the government, the period is 30 years.

The enjoyment must end within two years before the claim is contested in court. Temporary obstructions do not count unless they last for at least one year and are not challenged by the claimant.

Essentials for Prescriptive Easement

1. Peaceful Possession: No force is used by the claimant, and the enjoyment is not stopped by force.
2. Open Possession: The use must be visible to the owner, not secret or hidden.
3. As of Right: The use must be without the owner’s permission, and as if the claimant had a right to do so.
4. Without Interruption: The use must continue without significant break for the entire 20 or 30 years.

Suppose A regularly walks across B’s land to reach the main road. If A does this openly and peacefully, without B’s permission or interference, for 20 years, A gets a legal right of way over B’s land.

Case Law

• Rachhaya Pandey v. Sheodhari Pandey (1963): The Supreme Court held that naturally draining rainwater is not an easement under Section 25.
• Manindra Nath Bose v. Balaram Chandra Patni (1973): The Calcutta High Court held that a customary right of way for villagers cannot be acquired as a prescriptive easement under Section 25.

Section 26: Exclusion for Reversioner of Servient Tenement

Section 26 deals with situations where the property over which an easement is claimed is held on a life interest or a lease exceeding three years. In such cases, the period during which the easement was enjoyed while the property was under such a lease or life interest is excluded from counting towards the 20 or 30-year period.

However, the person who regains possession (the reversioner) must resist the easement claim within three years of getting back the property.

Suppose C uses a right-of-way over D’s property, which is leased to E for 10 years. The 10 years during which E had the lease will not count towards C’s prescriptive period. After D gets the property back, the clock resumes. D must object within three years, or C can add the time.

Section 27: Extinguishment of Right to Property

Section 27 states that if a person does not bring a suit for possession of property within the limitation period, they lose the right to recover the property itself. Unlike most limitation provisions that bar only the remedy, Section 27 bars both the remedy and the right.

Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period for possession of immovable property is 12 years from the date when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

If the suit is not filed within 12 years, the owner’s right is extinguished, and the person in adverse possession becomes the legal owner.

If a trespasser occupies land, pays tax, or uses it as their own for 12 continuous years, and the true owner does nothing, the trespasser can become the legal owner.

The Doctrine of Adverse Possession

Section 27 is closely connected to the doctrine of adverse possession.

• Adverse Possession means holding property in a manner hostile to the interests of the true owner.
• The possessor must show that his possession was open, continuous, and known to the true owner.
• The limitation period (usually 12 years) begins when the true owner first becomes aware of the adverse possession.

Essentials to Prove Adverse Possession

1. Date of Starting Possession: The possessor must establish the exact date when possession became adverse.
2. Knowledge of Owner: The true owner should be aware (or have means of knowledge) that someone else is in possession.
3. Peaceful and Continuous Possession: The possession must not be by force and must continue for the entire period.
4. No Legal Action by Owner: The owner must not have taken any legal steps to regain possession during this period.

The limitation period does not run if the true owner is a minor, of unsound mind, or serving in the armed forces.

If the land belongs to the government, the period required for adverse possession is 30 years.

Key Judgements on Acquisition of Ownership by Possession

Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh (1973)

The Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of limitation law is to prevent disturbance of settled possession that has continued for a long time. If the true owner does not act, the possessor gains a legal right through passage of time.

Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjeet Kaur (2019)

The Supreme Court held that a claim for adverse possession is maintainable under Article 65. The adverse possessor must prove all elements—hostile, open, and continuous possession—to succeed.

Conclusion

The Limitation Act, 1963, through Sections 25, 26, and 27, establishes a fair balance between protecting property rights and rewarding those who have used land openly and continuously for a long time. These provisions promote certainty in land titles, prevent endless litigation, and encourage vigilance among landowners.

However, it is essential for everyone—owners and possessors alike—to understand that merely occupying land does not automatically make you the owner. The law requires open, continuous, and hostile possession for a specific period, and all essential conditions must be fulfilled.